Hope in the Klamath Basin

January 28, 2008

Portland Oregonian

By Glen Spain and Troy Fletcher

The proposed Klamath Restoration Agreement released Jan. 15 is intended to be a blueprint for peace on the Klamath River . If successful, it would be the biggest river restoration effort in American history. But most significantly, it marks a symbolic end to one of the West's most complex and bitter water wars.

The proposal addresses the needs of both fish and farms. It provides a reliable adequate allocation of water to farms and wildlife refuges, and addresses the need for affordable power for Klamath Project irrigators. In return, more water will be made permanently available to the lower river for the benefit of fisheries and coastal communities.

We hope, after careful consideration, that the people of the Klamath Basin - as well as others who care about the river and its communities - will join us in support of this historic proposal.

But first let's clear up some confusion.

First, we understand that there will be a few detractors. Passions in the Klamath Basin run high. However, there can be no solution when uncompromising positions seize the driver's seat.

Second, it is important that the costs of the proposed agreement -- close to $40 million per year over the next 10 years above what is currently being spent -- be put into context.

A better question for taxpayers is what will be the cost of inaction?

In 2001, farmers in the upper basin received approximately $50 million in relief after irrigation water was shut off to protect fish. In 2006, salmon runs collapsed and coastal fisherman received $61 million in relief. Without comprehensive solutions, this "revolving crisis" will only be perpetuated at taxpayer expense.

Third, the proposed agreement included only commitments between the 26 parties not related to PacifiCorp and its facilities. A separate companion agreement with PacifiCorp is still in negotiation. There have been 16 separate meetings with the PacifiCorp's president or general counsel over the last two years centered solely on PacificCorp's Klamath River hydropower dams.

While some hydropower can provide "clean energy," the Klamath dams have been a source of toxic algae blooms, which is a major public health concern. They also block access to 300 miles of habitat for salmon and steelhead - some of which are threatened with extinction. Reports from federal and state agencies concluded that dam removal is cheaper for PacifiCorp than building fish ladders, and that energy from the dams can be cost-effectively replaced. In three other recent dam removal settlements in Oregon , Washington , and Utah , PacifiCorp chose dam removal to protect its shareholders and customers.

We have charted a course based on collaboration, not conflict, to bring about the biggest river restoration effort in American history. In the Klamath Basin , we want to see farmers farm, wildlife thrive, fisherman fish, native Tribes embrace their respective cultures and to restore a valuable national treasure. The best way to assure this bright future, and to protect PacifiCorp's customers, is for the Klamath Dams to come down.

Glen Spain is Northwest regional director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations. Troy Fletcher is a Yurok tribal member and a policy analyst for the tribe.  

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material  herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed  a  prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and  educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Source:  http://blog.oregonlive.com/oregonianopinion/2008/01/hope_in_the_klamath_basin.html